Claudio, a resposta simples é que "não há solução prática".
O que há é um claro problema, que já não pode ser encarado como natural sem
que haja sérias consequências.

E o comentário que fiz agora pouco foi uma tentativa de explorar suas
causas, e chamar a atenção de mais pessoas para o problema na esperança de
futuramente encontrarmos uma solução.

Afinal não se pode solucionar um problema sem entender sua natureza, certo?

Só para saber: Concorda que o "vandalismo confiável" é um problema?

2012/9/26 Claudio Barbosa <rjclau...@gmail.com>

> Qual seria a ação prática a fazer? Deixar de lado o domínio principal e a
> construção de artigos para passar a vigiar (stalker) as pessoas que ...
> editam no domínio principal? Ter um grupinho de usuários que se especialize
> (dedique boa parte do tempo) a vigiar as ações dos outros?
>
> Alias, isso até acontece um pouco, com usuários vigiando os seus
> desafetos, e os desafetos acusando o outro usuário de estar perseguindo
> suas edições, e os passarem os dias brigando gerando um clima bem
> desconfortável na wiki até ambos serem bloqueados e/ou ambos largarem o
> projeto por não aguentarem mais.
>
> É totalmente normal (esperado) que o nível de vigilancia diminua conforme
> a pessoa vá conseguindo confiança. E é isso que tem que ser feito senão
> paramos de construir artigos e ficamos vigiando um ao outro. Só se volta a
> ter uma vigilância maior quando se encontra algum problema (algum erro vem
> a tona), e depois que passar um tempo desde esse erro sem ter outro
> problema adquire de novo a confiança e volta a ter menos vigilância.
>
> Afinal, qual foi exatamente o problema que levou a essa preocupação? Não
> há outras formas de se melhorar que não seja vigiar as edições dos outros?
> Vejo algumas reclamações de eliminação, reversão, bloqueio indevidos, mas
> minha impressão é que esses casos sempre são resolvidos no final, seja o
> usuário mudando o comportamento, seja perdendo o estatuto / confiança, seja
> decidindo que não havia nada de errado.
>
> Claudio Barbosa
>
> 2012/9/26 Raylton P. Sousa <raylton.so...@gmail.com>
>
>  É disso que estou falando Oona. E tento falar sempre.
>> Para quem é novato o sistema wiki parece perfeito... Com centenas de
>> pessoas revisando as páginas, vandalismos sendo desfeitos instantaneamente,
>> com toda praticidade que a web oferece.
>>
>> No entanto, existe algo que embora me incomode muito, estranhamente
>> parece ser ignorado ou não ser percebido.
>> É o fato de que  a atenção para as edições dos usuários vai diminuindo
>> gradativamente conforme eles vão ganhando confiança da comunidade(me atrevo
>> a dizer que quando conseguem o status de "auto-confirmados" a atenção nas
>> suas edições cai praticamente pela metade e até menos).
>>
>> Existe o caso dos administradores que parecem ser melhores vigiados,
>> porque muitos casos de suposta arbitrariedade vem a tona eventualmente. Mas
>> isso também é um mito.
>> As ações administrativas são apenas levadas realmente ao público quando a
>> pessoa que sofreu a ação se sente ofendida ou quando o assunto que se
>> discute é do interesse de uma parcela maior de usuários.
>>
>> Ou seja, uma atenção maior só é dada aos administradores quando um
>> determinado número de usuários é afetado diretamente. E falo sem medo de
>> errar, que eles têm a liberdade de trabalhar em outras tarefas mais
>> triviais de forma arbitraria sim(embora não esteja afirmando que façam).
>>
>> Não é anormal que isso aconteça, afinal de contas há um número muito
>> maior{{carece de fontes}} de vandalismos simples e VDAs óbvios, que
>> precisam ser revertidos, e por simples lógica direcionamos nossa atenção
>> para eles.
>>
>> No entanto esse fato cria um fenômeno muito desagradável e que por ser
>> tratado com tamanho descaso pode, naturalmente, não só destruir o nome
>> da Wikipédia(que a Wikimedia tanto explora na sua busca por mais
>> voluntários). Como trazer consequências muito mais greves.
>> Esse fenômeno eu chamo de "vandalismos confiáveis".
>>
>> É estranho, mas é da natureza humana supor que quando uma pessoa
>> confiável está com uma faca ela vai apenas cortar uma carne para o almoço e
>> em contra partida supor que a desconhecida vai cometer algo ilícito. Mas
>> devemos assumir que em certos casos os pepeis se invertem e que atenção
>> nunca é demais.
>> Principalmente pelo fato das pessoas mudarem drasticamente ao longo do
>> tempo e que todos temos interesses que nos
>> tornam invariavelmente parciais(o que é notado mais claramente conforme
>> ganhamos mais poder).
>> Portanto se não estivermos atentos a essas mudanças, pode ser tarde.
>>
>>
>> Mas voltando aos "vandalismos confiáveis" devo dizer que eles não se
>> resumem a um simples "Hoax". Em geral são informações muito bem
>> estruturadas devido ao conhecimento que os usuários têm do mecanismo wiki.
>> E normalmente não podem ser detectados e as chaces de serem diminuem
>> drasticamente com a diminuição da atenção em usuários confiáveis, por isso
>> os considero o "maior" desafio da construção colaborativa.
>>
>> Peço encarecidamente que todos pensem um pouco sobre isso.
>> Esses poucos casos de manipulação que vem à tona não são nada comparados
>> aos que permanecem protegidos pelo manto da confiabilidade.
>> Isso não é mais uma teoria da conspiração, agora é um desafio real, que
>> precisa ser quantificado e resolvido o quanto antes.
>>
>> Com os melhores cumprimentos!
>>
>> 2012/9/25 Oona Castro <ocas...@wikimedia.org>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Sarah Stierch <sstie...@wikimedia.org>
>>> Date: Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:46 PM
>>> Subject: [Wmfcc-l] Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at
>>> Wikipedia
>>> To: wmfc...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57514677-93/corruption-in-wikiland-paid-pr-scandal-erupts-at-wikipedia/
>>>
>>>
>>>  Concerned Wikipedians raised the alarm Monday that two trusted men --
>>> one a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK, the other a respected
>>> Wikipedian In Residence -- are allegedly editing Wikipedia pages and
>>> facilitating front-page placement for their pay-for-play, publicity-seeking
>>> clients.
>>>
>>> Jimmy Wales is not pleased.
>>>
>>> It began this week when an interesting discussion started on the DYK
>>> ("Did You Know") discussion 
>>> page.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Potential_abuse_of_DYK>
>>>
>>> Roger Bamkin, trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK, whose LinkedIn
>>> page describes him as a high-return-earning PR 
>>> consultant<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/roger-bamkin/52/ab8/b59>,
>>> appeared to be using Wikipedia's main page "Did You Know" feature and the
>>> resources of Wikipedia's GLAM 
>>> WikiProject<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM>(Galleries, 
>>> Libraries, Archives and Museums) initiative to pimp his
>>> client's project.
>>>
>>> Bamkin's current client is the country of 
>>> Gibraltar<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Interests#Roger_Bamkin>
>>> .
>>>
>>> In August, Gibraltar was featured as a Wikipedia DYK front page feature an
>>> astonishing seventeen 
>>> times<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2012/August>- 
>>> that's an unusual frequency of every 2-3 days.
>>>
>>> Other than the Olympics, it is the only repeated topic throughout the
>>> month.
>>>
>>> The "Did You Know" section on Wikipedia's Main Page publicizes new or
>>> expanded articles - the publicity viewership on Wikipedia's front page is 
>>> estimated
>>> in the hundreds of millions per 
>>> month.<http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyOriginal.htm>
>>>
>>> *Wales: "wildly inappropriate"*
>>>
>>> When Wikipedia's founder was told about Bamkin's client in relation to
>>> Wikimedia UK, Jimmy Wales 
>>> wrote<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gibraltarpedia.2C_Wikimedia_UK_and_concerns_about_paid_editing_and_conflicts_of_interest_within_Wikimedia_UK>:
>>>
>>>
>>> It is wildly inappropriate for a board member of a chapter, or anyone
>>> else in an official role of any kind in a charity associated with
>>> Wikipedia, to take payment from customers in exchange for securing
>>> favorable placement on the front page of Wikipedia or anywhere else. - 
>>> *Jimbo
>>> Wales (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)*
>>>
>>>  At the same time Bamkin's consulting work as a representative of
>>> Wikimedia Foundation reared its ugly head, Wikipedia community members
>>> exposed the SEO-focused, PR-strategy Wikipedia page editing business run by
>>> respected GLAM editor Max Klein.
>>>
>>> Both Klein and Bamkin are "Wikipedians In 
>>> Residence,<http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence>"
>>> a role held by Wikipedia editors in high esteem who liaison with galleries,
>>> libraries, archives and museums to facilitate information between the
>>> organizations and Wikipedia community editors.
>>>
>>> Wikipedians In Residence are not allowed to operate if there are
>>> conflicts of interest and are not allowed to edit the pages of the
>>> organization they liaison with.
>>>
>>> Maximillion Klein <http://notconfusing.com/about/> runs a consulting
>>> business called "untrikiwiki <http://untrikiwiki.com/>" whose
>>> self-description explains:
>>>
>>> A positive Wikipedia article is invaluable SEO: it's almost guaranteed
>>> to be a top three Google hit. Surprisingly this benefit of writing for
>>> Wikipedia is underutilized, but relates exactly the lack of true expertise
>>> in the field. ... WE HAVE THE EXPERTISE NEEDED to navigate the complex maze
>>> surrounding 'conflict of interest' editing on Wikipedia. With more than
>>> eight years of experience, over 10,000 edits, and countless community
>>> connections we offer holistic Wikipedia services.
>>>
>>> When the concerned Wikipedia editors asked Jimmy Wales about untrikiwiki
>>> (in the thread about Roger Bamkin) Wales commented:
>>>
>>> I was unaware of this case, and haven't had time to look into it. If
>>> what you say is accurate, then of course I'm extremely unhappy about it.
>>> It's disgusting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2012
>>>
>>> *No specific Wikimedia UK policy on "paid editing"*
>>>
>>> At this time, there is no Wikimedia UK policy against "paid editing" for
>>> Wikipedia pages, though Jimmy Wales has 
>>> said<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Statement_by_Jimbo_Wales>that
>>>  paid editing is against Wikipedia values and policy.
>>>
>>> However, there's no doubt that the lack of a clear policy casts a shadow
>>> over the public's perception of Wikipedia's ethical standing.
>>>
>>> If PR editing from Wikipedia's representatives -- paid or not -- were to
>>> be openly tolerated, Wikipedia's reputation will most certainly be harmed
>>> in a way that is different from the harm done from vandalism or covert PR
>>> editing.
>>>
>>> In the case of Roger Bamkin, a director of Wikimedia UK is advertising
>>> himself, as a Wikimedia UK director, for paid consultancy jobs, and directs
>>> and engages in editing on Wikipedia in the service of his personal client.
>>>
>>> Bamkin's LinkedIn 
>>> page<http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/roger-bamkin/52/ab8/b59>states:
>>>
>>>  *Roger Bamkin's Experience*
>>>
>>> Consultant Victuallers Ltd May 2012 - Present (5 months)
>>>
>>> I've been involved with QRpedia and Monmouthpedia which have delivered >
>>> £2m paybeack on £50K investment.
>>>
>>> Bamkin's formal Declaration of Interests for Wikimedia 
>>> UK<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Interests#Roger_Bamkin> states
>>> there is no conflict of interest (COI) with his role, access to Wikipedia
>>> resources and contract with Gibraltar as there is no official relationship
>>> between Gibraltar and Wikimedia UK.
>>>
>>> But to the outside eye this might appear as a financial conflict of
>>> interest among the people who are handling the money donated to support
>>> Wikipedia. Not to mention how unfair it is.
>>>
>>> You may be wondering how the country of Gibraltar ended up in the middle
>>> of a Wikipedia PR editing scandal. To answer that question, we can visit
>>> Wikipedia.
>>>
>>> Monmouthpedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monmouthpedia> is a
>>> Wikipedia project that links Wikipedia and the town of Monmouth in South
>>> Wales by the use of smartphone scannable QR codes.
>>>
>>> As the story is told, the idea for Monmouthpedia came when Roger Bamkin
>>> and Steve Virgin (former Wikimedia UK board member, current PR consultant
>>> and Bamkin's business 
>>> partner<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Interests#Roger_Bamkin>)
>>> gave a TEDx talk about their Wikipedia QR-code project 
>>> QRpedia<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO6ZrWJeaOM&feature=share>.
>>> From the audience, Wikipedia editor Steve Cummings (also Bamkin's
>>> business 
>>> partner<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Interests#Roger_Bamkin>)
>>> suggested they "do a whole town."
>>>
>>> Wales Online 
>>> wrote<http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2012/07/23/monmouth-wikipedia-project-inspires-gibraltar-91466-31450018/>:
>>>
>>>
>>> He [Bamkin] picked Gibraltar, at the southern tip of Spain, as his next
>>> project after being flooded with invitations from places around the world
>>> hoping to be the second Wikipedia town.
>>>
>>>  Enter Gibraltarpedia. In a feature yesterday, BBC News explained
>>> Gibraltarpedia <http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19544299> as the way
>>> in which Gibraltar is using QR codes and Wikipedia to target and attract
>>> tourists.
>>>
>>> While not as straightforward as untrikiwiki's open offer to navigate
>>> tricky Wikipedia conflict of interest rules as a service for for paying
>>> clients, Gibraltarpedia may be a cool idea but it still comes off as little
>>> more than free advertising for tourism - setting up a walled garden of
>>> articles all with an eye to promoting tourism - and potential investment -
>>> in Gibraltar.
>>>
>>> Seventeen features on Wikipedia's front page in one month is in equal
>>> measures strangely admirable, somewhat saddening and completely worrying.
>>>
>>> From a 2009 statement by Jimmy 
>>> Wales<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Statement_by_Jimbo_Wales>:
>>>
>>>
>>> It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their
>>> services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will
>>> personally block any cases that I am shown. (...)
>>>
>>> (...) Would we block a good editor if we found out after the fact is a
>>> very different question. We have traditions of forgiveness and working with
>>> people to improve their behavior and ours whenever we can - things are
>>> never so simple. Of course it is possible to imagine a situation where
>>> someone can and should be forgiven... because that's very common.
>>>
>>> That's not the same as saying that it would ever be ok, as a matter of
>>> policy. Just imagine the disaster for our reputation.
>>>
>>> I think many people would consider the idea of "Did You Know" - and
>>> Wikipedia's front page - being successfully used in a for-profit commercial
>>> venture by any entity to be harmful to Wikipedia, reputation or otherwise.
>>>
>>> But then again, Wikipedia and alleged conflicts of interest are not
>>> known to be handled with practicality - or clarity. Just ask Philip 
>>> Roth<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19527797>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Sarah Stierch*
>>> *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
>>> >>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate 
>>> >>today<https://donate.wikimedia.org/>
>>> <<
>>>  --
>>> *Sarah Stierch*
>>> *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
>>> >>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate 
>>> >>today<https://donate.wikimedia.org/>
>>> <<
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wmfcc-l mailing list
>>> wmfc...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfcc-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikimediaBR-l mailing list
>>> WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikimediaBR-l mailing list
>> WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikimediaBR-l mailing list
> WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
WikimediaBR-l mailing list
WikimediaBR-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediabr-l

Responder a